Calvinpill

Is there any section of the Bible that BTFOs Arminians and Pelagians more than Romans 9? As soon as I stopped LARPing and realized that Eastern Orthodoxy was a false Gospel, TULIP fell into place of its own accord

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it's not like you had a choice

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Feels good to be elect, bros… Glory to God!

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >I stopped... and realized...
    Typing like this demonstrates you don't believe what you're asserting.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >realized that Eastern Orthodoxy was a false Gospel
    What made you realize that? Your feelings?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The fact that iconodulia is foreign to the earliest Church Fathers was one of the key reasons that made me leave the catechumenate. When one learns that aniconism was common to the early Fathers, or at minimum that there is no evidence that early Christian art was bowed before, kissed, or anything else, it is hard to believe the practice is apostolic. The arguments of John of Damascus and Nicaea II have more in common with Porphyry’s theories of semiotics that he uses to defend pagan idolatry from Christian polemics.

      The other main reason was Marian hyperdulia. Just read the Akathist to the Theotokos, where she is called ‘salvation of my soul’ and ‘propitiation of my sins’, and is called the cloud in the wilderness in Exodus, and the true manna, thus equating her totally with Jesus Christ. In some of the prayers used in Orthodoxy Mary is also called the ‘true vine’, which is a title of Jesus in John 15. We sing ‘true Theotokos we magnify you’, but Mary said, ‘my soul magnifies the Lord’ in the Gospel. I love Mary, and the miracles God worked in her, but this is just too far for me. I started to see idolatry everywhere and began to take the Reformers seriously

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        There is no opposition to icons in the fathers.

        Marian hyperdulia doesn’t seem like something that would make God mad at all. She is the queen of Heaven any way you slice it.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >There is no opposition to icons in the fathers.
          Simply false. One simply has to look at what Justin Martyr, Arnobius, Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Augustine, Epiphanius, the Synod of Elvira and others wrote about images. It is across the board negative. No pro-iconodulia sources exist prior to the late 3rd or early 4th century. Christian artwork has a long history, but honoring images like pagans is an innovation, not part of the faith entrusted to the saints

          >Marian hyperdulia doesn’t seem like something that would make God mad at all.
          Mary was absolutely unique and very holy, but she was not the propitiation for sins or the salvation of our souls. This is blasphemous no matter what one says. There is a persistent trend which takes attributes of Christ and imputes them to Mary. With this logic, we might as well say Joachim and Anna are also our salvation and propitiation for sins and the true manna.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Simply false
            Care to bring some proofs?
            >honoring images like pagans is an innovation, not part of the faith entrusted to the saints
            The making and venerating of images, even as salvific, is in the OT.

            >Mary was absolutely unique and very holy, but she was not the propitiation for sins or the salvation of our souls. This is blasphemous no matter what one says.
            The reason it’s not blasphemous is because it is in no way a dishonour to Christ to call his mother perfect and grace-filled. Basic common sense. Plus, in the Gospels she is the one who notices the needs of the people that Christ overlooks.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Care to bring some proofs?
            Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70-130 AD)
            Mentions that the bronze serpent is an apparent contradiction of God’s command against images, but it was used to symbolize Jesus in advance (Chapter 12)

            Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)
            Mocks pagans in his First Apology for attempting to depict God, who has “ineffable glory and form” with “things that are corruptible” (chapter 9)
            Chapter 95 of the Dialogue with Trypho mentions that the bronze serpent was an apparent contradiction of the commandment against images, says it was a sign [of Christ]
            Quotes Sophocles, a Greek dramatist in his ‘Hortatory Address to the Greeks’ on the foolishness of ‘Images of the gods in stone and wood’
            Quotes the Sibyl [Pagan prophetess] to demonstrate that “images and figures of dead men” is straying “from the Immortal’s ways”

            Aristides (2nd century)
            “But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations… they do not worship idols made in the image of man” (Apology of Aristides 15)

            Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD)
            In ‘Against Heresies’ book 1, chapter 25, Irenaeus mentions that the Gnostic followers of Carpocrates “possess images”, and “They also have other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles”

            Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 220 AD)
            Mentions in Book II, chapter XXII of his Five Books Against Marcion that the similitude of all heavenly, earthly or aquatic things are forbidden by God. The bronze serpent was not a violation, nor were the cherubim of the ark—the serpent was merely a ”cure” for those afflicted by the fiery serpente, and the angels on the ark were “adapted to ornamentation”, and because “they are not found in that form of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given” .
            “Every form or formling, therefore, claims to be called an idol” (On Idolatry, chapter 3).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > Mentions that the bronze serpent is an apparent contradiction of God’s command against images, but it was used to symbolize Jesus in advance
            Icons are used to symbolize Christ after the fact.
            > mentions that the bronze serpent was an apparent contradiction of the commandment against images, says it was a sign [of Christ]
            Noticing a trend here. Maybe icons are only an “apparent” contradiction too?
            >Quotes the Sibyl [Pagan prophetess] to demonstrate that “images and figures of dead men” is straying “from the Immortal’s ways”
            Christ is dead?
            >against Gnostics
            >against Marcion
            Yet nothing against early Christians doing this practice. Odd, no?
            > Christians do not worship idols made in the image of man
            True.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Yet nothing against early Christians doing this practice.
            Because they did not do it. If Orthodox were actually familiar with the early Fathers they would know that imagery is a key facet in every debate. There is never any statement about ‘akshually we use images in the correct way!’

            >selective use of the fathers to prove a pre-conceived notion rather than submitting to them in full
            Wowow

            Scripture is perspicuous.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Care to bring some proofs?
            Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215)
            Mentions that Moses enacted expressly that no graven, molten, moulded nor painted likenesses should be made, “that we may not cleave to the things of sense, but pass to intellectual objects: for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense” (Stromata, book V, chapter 5)

            Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 - 235 AD)
            Like Irenaeus, Hippolytus writes of Carpocratian gnostics and how they ‘’make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging these were in existence during the time which our Lord was on earth, and that theh were fashioned by Pilate” (Refutation of All Heresies, chapter 20)

            Minucius Felix (died c. 250 AD)
            “Why have they [Christians] no altars, no temples, no acknowledged images? Why do they never speak openly, never congregate freely, unless for the reason that what they adore and conceal is either worthy of punishment, or something to be ashamed of?” (Octavius, chapter 10)
            “But do you think that we conceal what we worship, if we have not temples and altars? And yet what image of God shall I make, since, if you think rightly, man himself is the image of God?” (Octavius, chapter 32)

            Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 - c. 253 AD)
            In Contra Celsum Origen repeatedly mentions that Christians have a “contempt for idols, and images of all kinds”
            Chapter 8 of Book V has Celsus say that israelites bow to angels and heaven, but Origen says this is not israeli at all, but a transgression of God’s law and the prophets. Same for Christians.
            In Book VI, Origen says that we are not to worship the Father with images, but “in truth”, which “came by Jesus Christ”
            In Book VII, mentions that those “taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues”

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Proofs?
            Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (c. 310-320 - 403 AD)
            Comes across an image of Christ and a saint in a church and “tore it asunder”, for it was “contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures”.

            Synod of Elvira (305-6 AD)
            Images should not be in churches “so that what is venerated and worshiped should not be painted on the walls”

            Lactantius (c. 250 - c. 325)
            Says in Divine Institutes, Book II, that “But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always superfluous”

            Arnobius (died c. 330 AD)
            “For you are in the habit of fastening upon us a very serious charge of impiety because we do not… set up statues and images of any god…”
            “We worship the gods, you say, by means of images. What then? Without these, do the gods not know that they are worshipped, and will they not think that any honor is shown to them by you?” (Against the Heathen, book VI, chapter 9)
            “And whence, finally, do you know whether all these images which you form and put in the place of the immortal gods reproduce and bear a resemblance to the gods?” (Against the Heathen, book VI, chapter 10) - not strictly about Christian worship, but it is relevant to include, I think.

            Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)
            In reference to Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father, Augustine writes “it is unlawful for a Christian to set up any such image for God in a temple” (Of Faith and the Creed, Chapter 7)
            Augustine writes in the 34th chapter of ‘Of the Morals of the Catholic Church’ of those who are ‘professors of the Christian name’ who ‘even in the true religion are superstitious’, and are ‘given up to evil passions’, among whom are ‘many worshippers of tombs and pictures’.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Proofs?
            Pope Gregory the Great (540 - 604 AD)
            Writes to bishop Serenus of Marseilles about that some, after seeing “adorers of images”, broke and threw down these images in the churches. Gregory “commend[s] the zeal against anything made with hands being an object of adoration” and says that pictorial representation in the churches is for the illiterate so they may “read” as well. The church should have “prohibited the people from adoration of them”

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The making and venerating of images, even as salvific, is in the OT.
            Images themselves are not forbidden by God. This is clear from Scripture. God forbids creating images of God, and the creating images of creatures and bowing down before them [proskynesis, the same term used by Nicaea II for ‘veneration]. Pointing to the cherubim on the ark is not proof of iconodulia, neither is the brazen serpent, which was destroyed when they began to go against the 2nd commandment. Plus, it was simply demanded by God, who is the author of His own laws, and thus has the authority.

            >The reason it’s not blasphemous is because it is in no way a dishonour to Christ to call his mother perfect and grace-filled.
            Is Mary the salvation of our souls and the refuge for Christians? Should we have faith in her? Is she the manna? Taking glory from Christ and assigning it to a creature is never a good thing. “I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other” (Isaiah 42:8)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Is Mary the salvation of our souls and the refuge for Christians? Should we have faith in her? Is she the manna?
            There is a real sense in which all these things are true. It’s impossible to know Mary and not know Christ. Of course we should have faith in her, colloquially speaking. She obeyed the Lord perfectly and spoke truth always. Listen to her.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Shocking, I imagine you also happily sing ‘Most holy Theotokos save us!’ Yet the Psalms will teach you to call on no one but the LORD, and to seek refuge in Him alone, and that there is no salvation in another. Put not your trust in princes and sons of men in whom there is no salvation. How can you hyperdulia Mary when Peter rebuked Cornelius for offering veneration [Proskynesis] in Acts? How can you bow before images of saints and angels when John was rebuked for such a thing and told to worship [Greek is Proskynesis again] God in Revelation? If angels and saints will not even accept veneration on earth or in heaven, it is shocking to think that bowing before an image of them is okay, if the prototype does not even desire it. Do not void the Word of God with your traditions of men.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You can’t lack faith in Mary and have faith in Christ. Faith in Mary is therefore required for salvation. By taking refuge in Mary, you are taking refuge in Christ. Mary is simply not numbered among the “princes and sons of men in whom there is no salvation”.
            > How can you hyperdulia Mary when Peter rebuked Cornelius for offering veneration [Proskynesis] in Acts?
            He never called Cornelius impious, unfaithful, or immoral for this though. Peter was exercising humility. When Christ asked why people were calling him good, if only God is good, does that mean it’s bad to do so? Same for the story of John. John is a saint, he’s not sinning in this story.
            > If angels and saints will not even accept veneration on earth or in heaven, it is shocking to think that bowing before an image of them is okay
            More like just because they don’t accept it, it’s shocking to impute impiety or immorality to the people who were giving it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Peter said “I am only a man”, he recognized that you do not bow before men in a religious contexts. The angel said the same thing. It is done out of ignorance both times. What Peter says is right in line with what Jesus taught:
            >And Jesus answered him, “It is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”
            Again the word ‘proskynesis’ is used for ‘worship’ here, the same action offered to both the angel and Peter, and the people who offer it are rebuked both times. John 4:23 uses words of the same root to refer to the time when the Father will be worshiped in spirit and in truth. To offer it to creatures is idolatry. Discussing Marian veneration isn’t even worth the time until this issue is sorted out.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >She is the queen of Heave
          queen of heaven is a pagan goddess name
          Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
          You worship Mary like a goddess so doesn't surprise me you'd call her that

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Regarding Mary, I think you fail to understand the Eastern Orthodox view of her. It all starts with the incarnation. The point of the incarnation, according to Orthodox theology, is the total but distinct union between God and mankind. The phrase "God became man" is taken very literally by the Orthodox. The incarnation has really important soteriological implications. Orthodox Christians view the incarnation as the act of God coming down to Earth so that humans can rise up to God.
        Only when you understand the importance of the incarnation can you begin to understand the importance of Mary as well. Mary represents one of Jesus' natures... Let that sink in. Through Mary, the humankind has found salvation, according to the Orthodox. It is this union of God and Man that leads to the incarnation and makes salvation possible.

        That being said, the are many obvious parallels between Mother Mary and Hellenistic goddesses such as Athena and Aphrodite.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Through Mary, the humankind has found salvation, according to the Orthodox.
          This doesn’t justify placing the attributes of Christ on Mary. Like I said, we might as well say Joachim and Anna are the salvation of our souls since they brought about the person who would bring us salvation by bringing Jesus into the world. And we can back that up all the way to Adam and Eve. Copes aside, only Christ is salvation.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Like I said, we might as well say Joachim and Anna are the salvation of our souls since they brought about the person who would bring us salvation by bringing Jesus into the world
            They are also venerated highly. Slightly less so, because they are more removed. The further away from the Holy Family you get, the less veneration you find, because the overlap with Christ decreases the further back you go.
            >And we can back that up all the way to Adam and Eve
            They are OT righteous.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Irrelevant, you are ignoring the fact that Mary is literally given the terms that the SON OF GOD Himself possesses in truth. Mary is not salvation, she is not propitiation for sins, she is not our rebirth, she did not ‘strip hell bare’, or any of these things. I think you have not even read this akathist, or you have been seduced by the Orthodox false Gospel to such an extent that you can’t even realize the blasphemies that are being shown to you here

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Irrelevant, you are ignoring the fact that Mary is literally given the terms that the SON OF GOD Himself possesses in truth
            All that means is she is being given the maximum amount of veneration humanly possible. She is being afforded all the attributes of God (though not the same essence). Why do you have a problem with that?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do you have a problem with that?
            Because she is not God and calling on Mary will not save your soul

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I see no material difference between venerating Mary as fully holy, and worshipping Christ. They seem interchangeable since both are FULL of God.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >They seem interchangeable since both are FULL of God.
            Yikes

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            People who love the Panagia love Christ, and people who eschew the Panagia, are disconnected from Christ. There is no replacement - orthodox worship is maximalist.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >loving Mary means turning her into God
            Mary hates your blasphemy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Bowing down before me is blasphemy, bowing down before my son is right
            I somehow doubt that Mary is of that opinion. (Btw, do Protestants even ever bow down to Christ?!)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >do Protestants even ever bow down to Christ?
            No. It's idolatry, because He's not present.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If you repented of your idolatry and knew the Gospel, you would know that the Holy Spirit abides in true Christians and makes them into Temples of God, making us sons of God. Christ dwells within. There is no need to bow down before statues and idols of saints

            Sad

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >no argument
            Anyone who has the Spirit of Christ belongs to Christ. God does not give his glory to idols. Anyone who has reverence for the Fathers and God-breathed Scripture knows this.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Anyone who has reverence for the Fathers and God-breathed Scripture knows this.
            You venerate the dead fathers & pages of scripture..?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, I respect the successors of the apostles and the apostolic rule of faith and meditate upon God’s Word just as we are commanded to. God forbid you to bow before images and it wasn’t practiced by the apostles.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I respect the successors of the apostles and the apostolic rule of faith

            Here is some of what the successors of the apostles ruled at the 2nd council of Nicaea.

            >All writings against the venerable images areto be surrendered, to be shut up with other heretical books.

            >As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone – for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Those who forsake the apostolic faith, are not successors of the apostles. They use the same argument as the anti-Christian pagan Porphyry in this text.

            >muh apostolic succession, obey!
            “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.” (Jeremiah 7:4)

            “Then they said, “Come, let us make plots against Jeremiah, for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, let us strike him with the tongue, and let us not pay attention to any of his words.” (Jeremiah 18:18)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Pharisees claimed to have traditions going all the way back to Moses but Jesus rightfully calmed them out on that

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >God does not give his glory to idols
            God gives his glory to the Saints (perfected and deified in heaven) and to the Mother of God. It’s called grace

            Doesn’t justify bowing to boards.
            >You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

            To say Christ never left justifies bowing to *something*.

            Yes, I respect the successors of the apostles and the apostolic rule of faith and meditate upon God’s Word just as we are commanded to. God forbid you to bow before images and it wasn’t practiced by the apostles.

            >God forbid you to bow before images and it wasn’t practiced by the apostles
            During the early period, Christians were keenly aware of their place as successors to the apostles. Their arguments are hinged upon the fact that they are only teaching what their predecessors (the apostles) taught, while the heretics only quote the Scriptures (misinterpreting them in a manner contrary to apostolic tradition). Because of this pride in their preservation of apostolic tradition, any suggestion that these early Christians had abandoned the Gospel by allowing icons into the Church would have deeply scandalized them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Their arguments are hinged upon the fact that they are only teaching what their predecessors (the apostles) taught, while the heretics only quote the Scriptures (misinterpreting them in a manner contrary to apostolic tradition).
            This is a misrepresentation of history and the deceptive sneaking of innovations into the category of apostolic teaching. If apostolic tradition is that we are to teach only what the apostles taught, then I say amen to it, but it must be only that which the apostles actually taught (which is found in the scriptures of the New Testament) and not what monks many centuries after them taught. The problem with the Gnostics was not that they used the scriptures but that they did violence to them, interpreting them in insane and mystical ways on the basis of a secret tradition which they claimed without basis was handed down to them from the apostles.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Are you a successor of the apostles? You type with authority and base everything on your personal assertions/interpretations.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Anyone who holds the apostolic faith is a successor to the apostles. Scripture is perspicuous and God-breathed. The entire Church is founded on the apostles and the prophets. To read what they wrote is to give us direct access to what God asks of us, allowing us to speak with the authority, especially if the Spirit dictates us to

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, so you're a religious anarchist like Dirk.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I bet you would have said the same thing to Jeremiah, Elijah or John the Baptist.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Putting yourself on the level of the prophets is not a convincing argument.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Those people all lived in pre-Church times when holy tradition was still being solidified.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Anyone who holds the apostolic faith is a successor to the apostles
            No. Only apostles had the authority to teach. They were sent. Common believers weren’t EVER successors to the apostles.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Anyone who holds the apostolic faith is a successor to the apostles.
            The issue then being what is "the apostolic faith."

            >To read what they wrote is to give us direct access to what God asks of us, allowing us to speak with the authority, especially if the Spirit dictates us to
            You have a Protestant sensibility, to be sure. Alas that you were not at the Colloquy of Marburg and sorted out, with authority, those unfortunate disputes over the meaning of the words "This is my body." Would have saved everybody a lot of trouble.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I am their successor because I am of Christ. I don't speak for my authority, but for His.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You don’t have Christ’s authority

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            “ He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

            Putting yourself on the level of the prophets is not a convincing argument.

            So you’re rejecting the idea that God can raise up new prophets and people empowered by the Spirit to criticize apostate institutions and show God’s people the truth? Even today? This is why you would have allied with Ahab and Jezebel against the prophets

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Are you claiming to be a prophet, or what?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not a prophet, but God can absolutely raise up prophets

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Okay. You asserted that not obeying your teaching is the same as not obeying the prophets or Simon Peter, so I was confused.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >“ He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”
            Yeah that’s talking to the apostles whom Christ sent out and whom you ignore.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >apostles only taught what’s in the Bible
            Obviously untrue. Find me the date of Easter in the Bible. Or the word Trinity. Or the list of canonical books. Lol. Every single form of Christianity has extra-biblical teachings—many just (dishonestly) don’t call it that.

            >tfw became catechumen but am finding teachings of the church displeasing to God but all other Protestant churches are cringe and hokey

            Trust the plan. Keep the faith.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            We have no basis to say "the apostles taught this" for anything other than that which is found within the pages of scripture. What's more the scriptures have authority not because of their association with these men, I did not mean to give that impression, the opinion of Peter or Paul is rubbish, these scriptures have authority only and entirely because they are the words of God.
            >Find me the date of Easter in the Bible. Or the word Trinity. Or the list of canonical books
            Easter is not biblical and the apostles did not practice it. The word "Trinity" does not need to appear in the scriptures because the questions which the word answers are themselves extra biblical. The list of canon is not itself an aspect of divine revelation but an artifact of it.

            You don’t have Christ’s authority

            The bible does

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >We have no basis to say "the apostles taught this" for anything other than that which is found within the pages of scripture
            Not the apostolic fathers?? Lol. They literally lived closest in time to the apostles and the Bible, they are more reliable than you.
            >the opinion of Peter or Paul is rubbish
            Wow
            >The list of canon is not itself an aspect of divine revelation but an artifact of it
            Wow
            >The bible does
            Only people have authority, and you don’t have any to be able to teach from the Bible

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Not the apostolic fathers??
            No, the word of God did not come through them.
            >Wow
            >Wow
            Excellent argument
            >Only people have authority, and you don’t have any to be able to teach from the Bible
            God has authority, and He teaches personally through His word, "They shall all be taught of God"

            >“ He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”
            Yeah that’s talking to the apostles whom Christ sent out and whom you ignore.

            Your false prophets aren't apostles

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >>Not the apostolic fathers??
            >No, the word of God did not come through them.
            So? Are you stupid? They lived closest in time to the apostles, therefore they know what they taught the best. They were also holier than you or me and therefore more able to comprehend Jesus Christ. The entire church recognizes this. Even many Calvinists attempt to derive their religion faithfully to the church fathers. All you want to do is go your own way.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Those of the apostolic age were even closer to the apostles, and yet they were not perfect or else books like 1 Corinthians and Galatians would not exist. What I want is for the church to represent divine religion based on God's word, not traditions of men.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Well, on behalf of the rest of the world, I promise to get to work on what you want right away.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >not traditions of men.
            Everything is traditions of men. You are moronic and narcissistic if you think you can have religion based purely off of God's word. That's why the logical conclusion of Protestantism is to abandon rituals.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >That's why the logical conclusion of Protestantism is to abandon rituals.
            Braindead take. You’re also conflating Magisterial Reformation with Radical Reformation, who are radically different. People like Thomas Müntzer were literally saying stuff like the Bible is probably full of forgeries and that God comes with the Spirit and writes the true Scriptures on the heart, this is radically far away from Sola Scriptura. Or people like Calvin and Luther cited the Fathers in their writings and showed at least some concern for Church history, unlike radicals like Sebastian Franck who said “foolish Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory — of whom not even one knew the Lord, so help me God, nor was sent by God to teach. But rather all were the Apostles of Antichrist”

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >What I want is for the church to represent divine religion based on God's word, not traditions of men
            What makes you think our tradition is “of men” as opposed to divine? What evidence do you have? Because we have reasons for why it’s divine. If you interpret the Bible yourself outside of divine protocol, that’s when you get traditions of men (Protestantism for example)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If you interpret the Bible yourself outside of divine protocol, that’s when you get traditions of men (Protestantism for example)

            Yes, and that's what you get when half-a-dozen church leaders come up with half-a-dozen different readings of those four simple words, "This is my body." Because the Bible is *NOT* perspicuous. If there is any fixed star in the history of Christianity it is this. And it is indeed why Christ established a Church with teaching authority -- and indeed a Church, He promised, against which the Gates of Hell would not prevail. A Church which, moreover, is "the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15.

            Do you think you will find doctrinal truth through the private and individual leading of the Holy Spirit?

            Well, that hypothesis was put to test at the Reformation, and it failed. Spectacularly. For the Reformers could *not* agree on even so fundamental a matter as the meaning of four simple words: "This is my body."

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the Bible is *NOT* perspicuous.
            Refuted by Irenaeus

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes you think our tradition is “of men” as opposed to divine? What evidence do you have?
            You mean aside from the fact it explicitly contradicts God's word? All traditions are human traditions, because all traditions come through men. Proper Christian tradition is merely the passing down of divine truth from generation to generation, in every age its foundation is the revelation of God which is the sole sense in which it may be said to be "divine tradition". Scripture is the verbal word of God, when you open the book, you hear God's voice as surely as Moses did when it thundered around him. But when you talk about tradition the best you can get is a record of divine revelation since it does not contain the verbatim words of God. It is therefore of necessity the word of man and drastically inferior to the word of God unless man is to have more authority than God. When you make your tradition irreformable, making it equal to God's word, you are guilty of the sin of the pharisees making the word of God of no effect, since you have said that He may not correct your human tradition. This is beside the fact that historically speaking, your traditions are bereft of a connection to the apostles, whose religion your church hardly resembles.
            >Because we have reasons for why it’s divine
            Those reasons have to do with things the false prophets at the top of your religion commanded you to believe

            >If you interpret the Bible yourself outside of divine protocol, that’s when you get traditions of men (Protestantism for example)

            Yes, and that's what you get when half-a-dozen church leaders come up with half-a-dozen different readings of those four simple words, "This is my body." Because the Bible is *NOT* perspicuous. If there is any fixed star in the history of Christianity it is this. And it is indeed why Christ established a Church with teaching authority -- and indeed a Church, He promised, against which the Gates of Hell would not prevail. A Church which, moreover, is "the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15.

            Do you think you will find doctrinal truth through the private and individual leading of the Holy Spirit?

            Well, that hypothesis was put to test at the Reformation, and it failed. Spectacularly. For the Reformers could *not* agree on even so fundamental a matter as the meaning of four simple words: "This is my body."

            If there is disagreement about scripture there must either be a problem with scripture or with the men. I say it's the men, you say God is an idiot. Denial of the perspicuity of scripture is just one of many ways of undermining biblical authority in order to establish the false authority of false prophets. Your argument is "the bible is unclear anyways so I don't care what it says, give me a pope instead"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >All traditions are human traditions, because all traditions come through men
            >Proper Christian tradition is merely the passing down of divine truth from generation to generation
            Good job immediately contradicting yourself, accidentally calling the Bible a “tradition of men”. Because the Bible is a set of books written and compiled by humans and transmitted down through the generations by mere men. That makes it a merely human tradition according to you. You need to either retract your statement, or admit that sometimes, traditions are sacred/divine.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If there is disagreement about scripture there must either be a problem with scripture or with the men. I say it's the men
            Yes, specifically you

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not nearly to the same extent as the pope

            >All traditions are human traditions, because all traditions come through men
            >Proper Christian tradition is merely the passing down of divine truth from generation to generation
            Good job immediately contradicting yourself, accidentally calling the Bible a “tradition of men”. Because the Bible is a set of books written and compiled by humans and transmitted down through the generations by mere men. That makes it a merely human tradition according to you. You need to either retract your statement, or admit that sometimes, traditions are sacred/divine.

            >Good job immediately contradicting yourself
            There is no contradiction
            >Because the Bible is a set of books written and compiled by humans and transmitted down through the generations by mere men. That makes it a merely human tradition according to you.
            The bible is not a tradition at all, it is the verbatim source. Nor is it properly human in any sense, but it is the very words of God. God is speaking to us personally in the sacred scriptures, Jesus said to the pharisees "Have you not read what God spoke to you?"
            >You need to either retract your statement, or admit that sometimes, traditions are sacred/divine.
            I choose a third option: your argument is foolishness raised up against the counsel of God.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Not nearly to the same extent as the pope
            Fallenness of men is the simple reason scripture is not and will never “perspicuous”.
            >There is no contradiction
            You called genuine Christianity a tradition (“proper Christian tradition”) in the same breath as saying all traditions are human traditions.

            The Bible is a theanthropic work. It has both human and divine origin. It didn’t thunder down from heaven. It was written by human hands, scrutinized and compiled by human minds, passed down between humans. To say the Bible is not a tradition is inaccurate. Tradition simply means “transmission from generation to generation”. God doesn’t give the Bible anew to each generation. Human hands transmit it. Therefore based on the example there is no reason why human traditions can’t be divine or infused with grace, and why true religion wouldn’t itself be a tradition. Because tradition just means transmission. Is the Bible divine? Yes - but the fact that it is opens up the possibility of other traditions/transmissions being divine too. “Bible = good, traditions = fallen” is braindead.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >To say the Bible is not a tradition is inaccurate
            Calling scripture a tradition as you are is strictly inaccurate, and is only being done to undermine its authority and exalt the traditions of men. Scripture in a sense is a tradition, *not* the text but only the book which contains it. When a covenant child is told that Jesus is God and they are given a bible to read, that human tradition and that divine revelation might be aligned as my commentary aligns with reality when I say "the sun rises in the east", however my statement that Jesus is God is fundamentally ontologically distinct and unjoinable with the scriptures which prove it. Hence my utterance of tradition on this point may be inerrant, but it is not infallible, nor is it what God has spoken. The bible alone is infallible, the bible alone is God's word.
            >Therefore based on the example there is no reason why human traditions can’t be divine or infused with grace
            Do you know of a single sentence which Jesus ever said that is preserved by tradition but lost in scripture?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > It has both human and divine origin. It didn’t
            Blasphemy. All Scripture is God-breathed, written by the Holy Spirit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It is a theanthropic work and that’s not blasphemy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It's idolatry, because He's not present
            Matthew 18:20 Behold, I am with you always even unto the end of the age. Amen.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Doesn’t justify bowing to boards.
            >You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If you repented of your idolatry and knew the Gospel, you would know that the Holy Spirit abides in true Christians and makes them into Temples of God, making us sons of God. Christ dwells within. There is no need to bow down before statues and idols of saints

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That picture is fugly and sinister btw, I’ll wait while you try to find an Orthodox one that is like that

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Veneration and worship are not interchangeable.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You must have felt really smart and smug while typing this, but you're transparently stupid and it has nothing to do with your argument.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Seethe

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is double predestination taught by early Christians? The earliest I can find is Augstine and that makes me a little concerned. Btw I am an Orthodox catechumen but the lack of support for iconography in the early Church makes me sceptical of its truth.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Just read Romans 9 and Ephesians very carefully and ask yourself what it Paul is really saying. He is very clear, and Scripture is not obscure, this is taught by the earliest Fathers like Irenaeus. What Rome and Constantinople want to say is that the Spirit is the author of obfuscation and unclarity. Patristic commentary on Romans 9 is really embarrassing, they all try to minimize God’s sovereignty. Also, remember that double predestination =/= that God is necessarily actively working unbelief in the reprobate. He may simply pass over them.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >selective use of the fathers to prove a pre-conceived notion rather than submitting to them in full
        Wowow

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            He said
            > Patristic commentary on Romans 9 is really embarrassing
            While also quoting patristics to make his case

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes but it rapidly fell off after the apologists due to the influence of pagan philosophy in their thinking, especially Justin Martyr.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      tulip is nonsense.
      for a simple question, how could God be all-loving if unconditional election was a thing?
      it implies leaving some souls to be damned.

      every church father until about the fourth century was an iconoclast.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Not true.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ayo pass the aux bout to blow this homie out his rebooks.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You get to the point where you're almost ready to leave this garbage pile and then it spoonfeeds you something like this and you fall back in.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw became catechumen but am finding teachings of the church displeasing to God but all other Protestant churches are cringe and hokey

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There is no perfect church. They're all filled with flawed human beings. Just go with the church that feels best because the majority of the differences are purely ethnic expression

      (Lutheran have the most nuanced and sane view of tradition and scripture)

      (Orthodox make truth claims about perfect councils and perfect preservation of traditional, which are demonstrably false see: old believers)

      Don't put your faith in fallen men, fallen councils, fallen translations, fallen clergy, fallen teachers, or anything except God and his always truthful always faithful word

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no perfect church
        Impiety
        >They're all filled with flawed human beings
        The structure of the Church, as a true theanthropic cooperation between God and man, should at least continually be drawing people in the *direction* of perfection in a consistent manner.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Orthodoxy requries you to believe that the physical church filled with physical sinners and apostates and heretics and will never err.

          We don't believe this about translators, saints, martyrs, prophets, congregations, bishops, apostles, or anything but God himself. But the orthobros want you to believe that certain councils under certain post hoc circumstances are perfect (not in words, because that's been shown to be wrong) (not in justification or rationale or argumentation, because that's been shown to be wrong) in sentiments. And they can only tell you hundreds of years after, and even then the specific have to be mediated and interpreted

          It's a house built on sand. Return to the rock, God. Return to the scriptures

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Orthodoxy requries you to believe that the physical church filled with physical sinners and apostates and heretics and will never err
            The Bible requires you to believe that.
            >It's a house built on sand
            Built on the foundations of the apostles with Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > The Bible requires you to believe that.

            No it doesn't. Inb4 gates of hell (that refers to death). There will always be believers, there will always be a remnant, but like in the OT the priesthood can still fall in to error.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Pillar and ground of truth

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone”. And as St. Irenaeus himself said, “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (AH 3.1.1). Not a troublesome passage.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why even quote Iranaeus if you don’t even care about being in communion w him?
            Scripture was always formally acknowledged and recognized as the ground and foundation of faith, as the Word of God and the Writ of the Spirit. Yet, there has still always been the problem of right and adequate interpretation.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I am in communion with Irenaeus, as we are both in the Body of Christ. All of the Magisterial Reformers were of one body with Irenaeus as well. Church history is not negated.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I am in communion with Irenaeus

            Irenaeus taught that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice:

            >And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.

            On apostolic tradition:

            >Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.

            >Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, ... they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            Specifically about the interpretation & teaching of scripture:

            >Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.

            >Such presbyters does the Church nourish, of whom also the prophet says: "I will give your rulers in peace, and your bishops in righteousness." Of whom also did the Lord declare, "Who then shall be a faithful steward, good and wise, whom the Lord sets over His household, to give them their meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He comes, shall find so doing." Paul then, teaching us where one may find such, says, "God has placed in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers." Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth, from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles

            >But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I am in communion with Irenaeus

            Irenaeus taught that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice:

            >And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.

            On apostolic tradition:

            >Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.

            >Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, ... they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

            Specifically about the interpretation & teaching of scripture:

            >Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.

            >Such presbyters does the Church nourish, of whom also the prophet says: "I will give your rulers in peace, and your bishops in righteousness." Of whom also did the Lord declare, "Who then shall be a faithful steward, good and wise, whom the Lord sets over His household, to give them their meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He comes, shall find so doing." Paul then, teaching us where one may find such, says, "God has placed in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers." Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth, from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles

            >But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Equating the Church exclusively with an ‘infallible’ worldly institution has always led to more harm than not. We know its false too, because anyone who has even dipped their toes into reading the Fathers will realize that they disagree on many things and often hold views that would be anathema to the later Church like millennialism (chiliasm), iconoclasm / aniconism, etc. The true Church has always been a spiritual community transcending institutions, not some form of institution. The anon above me already beat me to it, but the OT is actually the best illustration of this principle during the times of apostasy.

            Ironically with Catholicism and Orthodoxy their insistence on their own infallibility and guidance by the Spirit leads them to defend every absurdity and blunder they have ever did with councils like Nicaea II, the development of the papacy, etc. The magisterial Reformation with its emphasis on holding the truth faith over *pure* institutionalism and a critical reverence for Church history is the only sane view to hold.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            My dude, I'm not defending Orthodoxy I'm pointing out why it requries you to hold insane beliefs

            > Liturgical Prots are winning and autistic AGAIN

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think that what you’re saying is that it is not primarily a canonical authority which is vested in the church, but a charismatic authority, grounded in the assistance of the Spirit: “for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us.” Is that right?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I would say that is correct. For example, Paul says that he who does not possess the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him (Romans 8:9). Good example in Acts 20 as well, when Paul says “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers”. It seems the Spirit was more of the deciding factor in who became an overseer [bishop] than institutional authority per se. Institutions have a place, but they’re fallible.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I would say that is correct
            Good because that’s the view of Orthodoxy well. Church as a charisma rather than as a canonical entity. You just haven’t connected the dots yet.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think the greatest mystery of all, that transcends any Theological camp is why are there so many anons larping as educated and pious Christians on IQfy? A site filled to the brim with porn, violence and scruples.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Probably there are people on the internet that want the peace of God just like a lot of other people, as long as they are involved in a parish I don’t see the issue, that being said Orthodox folk shouldn’t really be spilling their pearls before swine either, that’s something I’ve been thinking about recently too

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Personally I am autistic and so I have spent a lot of time studying and researching Christianity even though I am not Christian
      I've pretended to be a Christian for the last 4 years on and off

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Based

        Why aren’t you actually Christian?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I don't see any reason to be Christian
          The closest I've ever gotten was having a sudden very clear mental image of Mary when I went for a walk and it rattled me a bit but that's only emotion

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't see any reason to be Christian
            Is it because you don't believe God exists?
            The fundamental reason to convert and live as a Christian until death is "I want to do what God wants". Anything else is secondary and not guaranteed; the most holy life is full of suffering. No one could naturally see a reason for that, or desire it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The way I see it the fundamental reason for converting to Christianity is because you think the content in the Old Testament is true and the account of Jesus and the early Church in the New Testament is true
            That's just my personal understanding, I was born into a 'pagan' family so I don't have the same reference point that a lot of you guys do

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's downstream of the one God (of Abraham) being real, of course.

            If you intellectually assent to God's existence, and thus authority, you then come to accept that the religion (how we render our due to God) ordered by Him has a legitimate & honest purpose - which follows a linear succession from Adam to the extant Church. From there comes scripture, interpretation, teaching, etc.

            My upbringing left me as more of a deist than anything else, but I eventually entertained the gnawing to seek union with Him as opposed to just a vague acknowledgement of God. Maybe that's a leg up as far as belief goes for me.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Alright but if you believe in God and presumably aren't completely close minded about the possibility of revelation like deists are, what made you choose Christianity?
            You don't accept the Bible as true as your first step so where are you supposed to go?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I thought Deism implied a Christian bias, considering it's a Western tradition.

            Anyway, considering your main choices of actual religions (Dharma, folk religions, etc are not religions in the proper sense) both claim to worship the same God, you then have to discern who has the proper understanding of this God. Even putting aside Islam's blindingly obvious self-serving origin, Christianity wins here.

            You then look, within the Christian camp, which institution has an unbroken, rational lineage to the beginning. I won't name it here so to not cause an argument, but it's plain to see.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >which institution has several unbroken, rational co-lineages to the beginning, all in communion with each other yet distinct
            Ftfy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's fair to say that those in communion with each other share the same lineage in that sense. Each apostle has his own unique lineage which developed history, of course.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            My favourite proof of God combines science with reason, the fact that only nothing can come from nothing, yet there is something, therefore there was always something (by pure reason alone). Yet also the physical universe scientifically had a beginning. Combining these two results, you prove God.

            The self-evident divinity of Christ is another good proof.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm Lutheran. I don't care about Arminians or Pelagians.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Based, the true and correct understanding of free will.

      > Free will gays eternally prideful
      > Tulip gays eternally exalting reason

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >exalting reason
        Lutheran codeword for "not having self-contradictory theology"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          > Saying we don't know
          > Contradiction
          Pick one lawyer

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The thing you "don't know" is how to patch up the contradictions in your theology

            >Not nearly to the same extent as the pope
            Fallenness of men is the simple reason scripture is not and will never “perspicuous”.
            >There is no contradiction
            You called genuine Christianity a tradition (“proper Christian tradition”) in the same breath as saying all traditions are human traditions.

            The Bible is a theanthropic work. It has both human and divine origin. It didn’t thunder down from heaven. It was written by human hands, scrutinized and compiled by human minds, passed down between humans. To say the Bible is not a tradition is inaccurate. Tradition simply means “transmission from generation to generation”. God doesn’t give the Bible anew to each generation. Human hands transmit it. Therefore based on the example there is no reason why human traditions can’t be divine or infused with grace, and why true religion wouldn’t itself be a tradition. Because tradition just means transmission. Is the Bible divine? Yes - but the fact that it is opens up the possibility of other traditions/transmissions being divine too. “Bible = good, traditions = fallen” is braindead.

            >Fallenness of men is the simple reason scripture is not and will never “perspicuous”
            That's incoherent. Either the problem is the men, or the problem is the book. You just said the problem is the men, therefore the problem is the book. The reason there's disagreement about the bible is most people pick and choose which parts they believe, but scripture is perfectly clear. "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."
            >You called genuine Christianity a tradition (“proper Christian tradition”) in the same breath as saying all traditions are human traditions.
            Yes.
            >It has both human and divine origin
            While to be sure the human author is equal to the Holy Spirit in his contribution so that we may say the intention of the author is the authorial intent of God, "no prophecy of scripture is of human interpretation", so while the mind of man is active together with the Spirit in the writing of the text it is inaccurate to count him as a source, as with a human work.
            >scrutinized and compiled by human minds
            All men everywhere are completely devoid of the authority to "scrutinize" God's word, doing so is called sin, but to say it was compiled by men may or may not be accurate depending on how you define that.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >That's incoherent. Either the problem is the men, or the problem is the book. You just said the problem is the men, therefore the problem is the book
            It’s not a problem that the Bible is not perspicuous. It may pose a problem to your beliefs, but it’s not a fact. That’s your own personal preference but it’s not a fact. Fallenness means it’s not perspicuous and that’s not a problem with the Bible.

            >To say the Bible is not a tradition is inaccurate
            Calling scripture a tradition as you are is strictly inaccurate, and is only being done to undermine its authority and exalt the traditions of men. Scripture in a sense is a tradition, *not* the text but only the book which contains it. When a covenant child is told that Jesus is God and they are given a bible to read, that human tradition and that divine revelation might be aligned as my commentary aligns with reality when I say "the sun rises in the east", however my statement that Jesus is God is fundamentally ontologically distinct and unjoinable with the scriptures which prove it. Hence my utterance of tradition on this point may be inerrant, but it is not infallible, nor is it what God has spoken. The bible alone is infallible, the bible alone is God's word.
            >Therefore based on the example there is no reason why human traditions can’t be divine or infused with grace
            Do you know of a single sentence which Jesus ever said that is preserved by tradition but lost in scripture?

            >Calling scripture a tradition as you are is strictly inaccurate, and is only being done to undermine its authority and exalt the traditions of men
            But then you say
            >Scripture in a sense is a tradition
            So you agree that it is.
            >not* the text but only the book which contains it
            What is this mental gymnastics?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s not a problem that the Bible is not perspicuous
            The bible is perspicuous. Your denial of it is simply a denial of its authority, "it's not clear anyways so who cares what it says, give me a pope instead"
            If it was not perspicuous, that would be a problem with the book since it would concern its readability. In alleging the problem is with the bible itself, you call God an idiot who is less capable of communicating than ourselves.
            >Fallenness means it’s not perspicuous
            That's still incoherent.
            >What is this mental gymnastics?
            I'm sorry you have such difficulty understanding simple speech, maybe that's why you struggle so much with understanding scripture. The point obviously is that the book is passed down, but the text is unchanging. It is not anything like stories being passed around campfires after generations, it is the verbatim speech as if we were in the first generation.

            tulip is nonsense.
            for a simple question, how could God be all-loving if unconditional election was a thing?
            it implies leaving some souls to be damned.

            every church father until about the fourth century was an iconoclast.

            >for a simple question, how could God be all-loving if unconditional election was a thing?
            >it implies leaving some souls to be damned.
            It seems like your objection is not so much to Unconditional Election but to the doctrine of hell, since everybody agrees God will leave some to be damned. God is still loving even though some will be damned because He like us is capable of loving in different ways and to different extents. I do not love every woman the same way I love my wife, and if I do that is called sin. God does love the reprobate, they are not damned for lack of love, but because the holiness of God demands justice. I think Unconditional Election is a tremendous manifestation of God's love and very humbling, since there was absolutely nothing of value in me nor did I accomplish any good deed to draw Christ's love, but God saved me purely for mercy's sake.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >but God saved me purely for mercy's sake
            The reprobate thinks the same thing. Careful!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Very few reprobates ever think that.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're not among them? "Very few" of many - in fact, most of humanity - is quite a lot!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The bible is perspicuous. Your denial of it is simply a denial of its authority
            It’s not perspicuous because man is fallen and unable (usually) to hear God’s word. That’s in the Gospels.
            >"it's not clear anyways so who cares what it says, give me a pope instead"
            Not what I said.
            >If it was not perspicuous, that would be a problem with the book since it would concern its readability
            The Bible is perfect. This concerns the operation of sin in man which blinds them to the truth. The reason there is disagreement over interpretation of the Bible is because of the fallenness of men. In an unfallen world, everyone would be on the same page concerning God’s truth, and there would be no disagreement.
            >In alleging the problem is with the bible itself, you call God an idiot who is less capable of communicating than ourselves.
            The Bible is perfect and God is not an idiot, you are.
            >The point obviously is that the book is passed down
            Glad you agree.
            >but the text is unchanging.
            So is Holy Tradition.
            >It is not anything like stories being passed around campfires after generations
            Neither is Holy Tradition.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >God saved me purely for mercy's sake.
            how do you know He saved you?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            He promised it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not to those He passes over. The greatest glory for God could come from passing you over tomorrow, or the next day, or on your deathbed.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            He already has not passed me over.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know this?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            He said so.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            In a vision to you?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No, in the bible.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Where does He mention you specifically? How do you know you are one of the people He has saved?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The promise is for all believers.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Calvinism and all iconoclasts are wrong.

    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/16/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-1-of-5/
    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/17/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-2-of-5/
    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/20/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-3-of-5/
    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/22/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-4-of-5/
    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/23/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-5-of-5/

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This was refuted here:

      https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Arminianism makes no sense. I hate how it snuck itself into perfectly good reformed denominations. It's basically the pipeline to abysmal popery.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Calvinism is iconoclastic, therefore by sharing PAINTING of Calvin you prove yourself to be a troll

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Calvin literally says there is nothing wrong with non-religious art in the Institutes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      He did sort of trigger it, but he was appalled by it and made public statements condemning it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Calvin literally says there is nothing wrong with non-religious art in the Institutes.

      >I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully,—that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory.
      https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/institutes.iii.xii.html

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm so Calvinist I skipped reading Calvin and went straight to the Westminster Divines.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      how do i find Puritan books?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        monergism.com for free ebooks and pdfs

        as far as publishers the two major ones who do Puritan works are Banner of Truth and Reformation Heritage Books

        if you are just starting out get some of the Puritan Paperback series from Banner of Truth. Thomas Watson is pretty easy to read.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    When you talk about Calvin Luther Aquinas etc it looks like you’re talking about action figures

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >is more based than Luther or Calvin in your path

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Calvinism is wrong because its quite literally reading the Bible without any context or understanding on tradition

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      He makes superficial gestures towards respecting tradition and the fathers but ultimately just uses them as a proof text to reenforce his preconceptions.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The whole point is to read scripture in its context to discern the meaning, which context is not traditions from centuries later.

      >The bible is perspicuous. Your denial of it is simply a denial of its authority
      It’s not perspicuous because man is fallen and unable (usually) to hear God’s word. That’s in the Gospels.
      >"it's not clear anyways so who cares what it says, give me a pope instead"
      Not what I said.
      >If it was not perspicuous, that would be a problem with the book since it would concern its readability
      The Bible is perfect. This concerns the operation of sin in man which blinds them to the truth. The reason there is disagreement over interpretation of the Bible is because of the fallenness of men. In an unfallen world, everyone would be on the same page concerning God’s truth, and there would be no disagreement.
      >In alleging the problem is with the bible itself, you call God an idiot who is less capable of communicating than ourselves.
      The Bible is perfect and God is not an idiot, you are.
      >The point obviously is that the book is passed down
      Glad you agree.
      >but the text is unchanging.
      So is Holy Tradition.
      >It is not anything like stories being passed around campfires after generations
      Neither is Holy Tradition.

      >It’s not perspicuous because man is fallen
      The coherence of this statement has not increased by your repetition of it. The state of man does not impact the clarity of scripture one way or the other; either it is clear, or it is not. The relevance to sin is its capacity to impact man's reasoning and lead him away from scripture's clear meaning, so that it is not held back from him, but he holds himself back from it. The problem is therefore not a lack of clarity in God's speech, but a lack of submission to it in sinful man, such as you are representing here.
      >Not what I said.
      No it's what you meant, papists are scarcely explicit when they attack scripture so I have to point out their meaning for them.
      >The Bible is perfect and God is not an idiot, you are.
      >Glad you agree
      >So is Holy Tradition.
      >Neither is Holy Tradition.
      There's no argument here, there's nothing but rhetoric. So I have no burden to respond to it, since no point has been made, but I will point out that I absolutely reject the authority of your false tradition because I am indebted to the authority of God's word which you are seeking to subvert in favor of it. Your human tradition is little more than a fencing dagger, it has no substance but is merely there to deflect any objections to your doctrines which have no basis in divine revelation by slapping the label "tradition" on them to create an excuse for believing them.

      >I am in communion with Irenaeus

      Irenaeus taught that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice:

      >And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.

      On apostolic tradition:

      >Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.

      >Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, ... they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

      >Irenaeus taught that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice
      No he didn't.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Infallible Tradition includes the canon of scripture. Sola Scriptura inherently says that any given NT book could possibly not be scripture, because nothing infallible says which books are scripture. Because of this, Sola Scriptura theology can't point to any book (or verse) and say "this is infallible" because it acknowledges that no infallible authority says it is scripture.

        But this ultimately gets overlooked by 99% of Protestants. The only commentary out there on this is by RC Sproul who thinks "a fallible list of infallible books" is a good justification on this.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Infallible Tradition includes the canon of scripture
          This has already been refuted at length.
          >Sola Scriptura inherently says that any given NT book could possibly not be scripture, because nothing infallible says which books are scripture. Because of this, Sola Scriptura theology can't point to any book (or verse) and say "this is infallible" because it acknowledges that no infallible authority says it is scripture.
          The authority by which God's word is authenticated is God who speaks it. There is no inspired table of contents, nor does the pope of Rome or any other man have any authority to dictate what is or is not God's word, God alone has that authority. What determines that a book is to be included in the canon is that it is the word of God. The inclusion of an inspired table of contents would be redundant, since what sets the believer and unbeliever apart is faith. To accept this inspired canon you would first have to accept the canon itself of which it would be part, or else you would not accept the list or its claim to be inspired. On the other hand if you did accept the canon you would have no need of the list, since you already accept the canon of which it is part. The fact such a list would be superfluous is I imagine why God did not include one. The means by which we know that the bible is God's word is that He causes us to believe it, as the Lord said "My sheep hear my voice, and the voice of another they will not follow". I would know why I should accept your church's authority, what authenticates it, and if you say God why should I believe He has?
          >But this ultimately gets overlooked by 99% of Protestants. The only commentary out there on this is by RC Sproul who thinks "a fallible list of infallible books" is a good justification on this.
          You're just clueless about our theology.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >No he didn't.

        Are you asserting this is a fake quote, or something?

        >And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.

        Here he states that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, it is sacrificial in nature, and that its recipients receive "remission of sins and life eternal".

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No I'm asserting you have inserted a bunch of medieval theology into this which does not express anything of the kind.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm literally just quoting Irenaeus, I'm not inserting anything.

            He states:
            >Christ is really in the Eucharist
            >The Eucharist is sacrificial
            >Its recipients receive forgiveness for sins

            Do you agree with that?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You aren't just quoting Irenaeus, you are explicitly assigning an anachronistic interpretation to his words. For example, where is the priest performing the miracle of transubstantiation in the quote? Where is the priest acting in persona Christi offering the sacrifice of Christ to the Father for the sins of the living and the dead? It isn't there, you have looked at a quote that mentions things like Eucharist, Christ, sacrifice, forgiveness, and then leapt without warrant to a conclusion that this is the mass, a conclusion that was likely aided by reading this quote in some quotemining list on some Romanist apologetics website. However, if one does not approach this text assuming he is a Romanist and does not take for granted that this is about a mass, one could not reasonably be led to that conclusion. He does say the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but a sacrifice offered in thanks to God for His blessings, "giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment". He has no notion of Jesus Christ being offered as a victim, but identifies that which is offered as bread and wine. It after this oblation is "perfect", he says, that the Holy Spirit is invoked to exhibit (and not offer) the sacrifice of Christ (through antitypes) by which they may be forgiven.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Prots coping and mental gymnastics trying to bend the fathers to match their beliefs is always sickening

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Didn't realize he replied to me, I have filters on for specific slurs that this guy is too immature to stop using. That post is an absolute mess, though, hah

            I accept your concession.

            That's not me, you spastic.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I don't use slurs, but I accept your concession as well.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Simple yes or no question
            >Wall of text non-answer

            Ah, Calvinists, the left wingers of Christianity

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The question was incorrect.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > and does not take for granted that this is about a mass, one could not reasonably be led to that conclusion. He does say the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but a sacrifice offered in thanks to God for His blessings, "giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment". He has no notion of Jesus Christ being offered as a victim, but identifies that which is offered as bread and wine.

            No, what he offers in sacrifice is identified as "the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ." (Source: https://www.logoslibrary.org/irenaeus/fragments/37.html)

            He elsewhere speaks of "the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, [...] concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand [...] indicating in the plainest manner [...] that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him"
            Against Heresies, IV:17:5

            See this page for the many other references to Malachi 1:11 in the Fathers:

            http://thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2011/10/malachi-111-in-patristic-literature.html

            But, in short, the supposed "anachronistic interpretation" of Irenaeus is no anachronism; it is plain in the text of Irenaeus.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >No, what he offers in sacrifice is identified as "the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ."
            >"no, he didn't say it's bread and wine he said it's bread and wine"
            Ok
            >But, in short, the supposed "anachronistic interpretation" of Irenaeus is no anachronism; it is plain in the text of Irenaeus
            Did you actually think this mindless quotation and citation while ignoring everything I said (and probably not understanding it either) was a refutation? My points stand.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            This is what you wrote: "He has no notion of Jesus Christ being offered as a victim, but identifies that which is offered as bread and wine."

            That's flatly wrong, as I explained in

            > and does not take for granted that this is about a mass, one could not reasonably be led to that conclusion. He does say the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but a sacrifice offered in thanks to God for His blessings, "giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment". He has no notion of Jesus Christ being offered as a victim, but identifies that which is offered as bread and wine.

            No, what he offers in sacrifice is identified as "the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ." (Source: https://www.logoslibrary.org/irenaeus/fragments/37.html)

            He elsewhere speaks of "the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, [...] concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand [...] indicating in the plainest manner [...] that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him"
            Against Heresies, IV:17:5

            See this page for the many other references to Malachi 1:11 in the Fathers:

            http://thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2011/10/malachi-111-in-patristic-literature.html

            But, in short, the supposed "anachronistic interpretation" of Irenaeus is no anachronism; it is plain in the text of Irenaeus.

            . To wit:

            >No, what he offers in sacrifice is identified as "the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ."

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No, you refuted yourself as you just did again. Do you plan to just keep repeating this or do you have something of value to contribute?

            **Question for knowledgeable Calvinists.

            Now, it's my understanding that a Calvinist communicant believes he is receiving in some way the real presence of Christ when he partakes of Communion. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

            What is Calvin's view of the Eucharist with respect to any change in the elements of bread and wine?

            For instance, is the bread bread only before it is consumed?

            Or is there any preservation of the Communion elements after the Lord's Supper service, on the understanding that what appears to be bread is no longer common bread?

            There is no change in the elements, they remain entirely bread and wine throughout. The Lord is presented separately but simultaneously to the soul of worthy recipients by the Spirit, but at no point is what enters the mouth flesh and blood. There is no special preservation of the elements, they are only special during the observance of the sacrament.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >they remain entirely bread and wine
            my face when i heard this

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >No, you refuted yourself as you just did again.

            No, mon ami, I refuted *you*, specifically this remark:

            You aren't just quoting Irenaeus, you are explicitly assigning an anachronistic interpretation to his words. For example, where is the priest performing the miracle of transubstantiation in the quote? Where is the priest acting in persona Christi offering the sacrifice of Christ to the Father for the sins of the living and the dead? It isn't there, you have looked at a quote that mentions things like Eucharist, Christ, sacrifice, forgiveness, and then leapt without warrant to a conclusion that this is the mass, a conclusion that was likely aided by reading this quote in some quotemining list on some Romanist apologetics website. However, if one does not approach this text assuming he is a Romanist and does not take for granted that this is about a mass, one could not reasonably be led to that conclusion. He does say the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but a sacrifice offered in thanks to God for His blessings, "giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment". He has no notion of Jesus Christ being offered as a victim, but identifies that which is offered as bread and wine. It after this oblation is "perfect", he says, that the Holy Spirit is invoked to exhibit (and not offer) the sacrifice of Christ (through antitypes) by which they may be forgiven.

            :
            >"He has no notion of Jesus Christ being offered as a victim, but identifies that which is offered as bread and wine."

            Again, that's flatly wrong, for Irenaeus wrote that the "oblation" or "sacrifice" he offered was (emphasis added):

            >"the bread THE BODY OF CHRIST, and the cup THE BLOOD OF CHRIST."

            Thus, CONTRARY to what you wrote, Irenaeus *does* identify his offering as "the body of Christ" and "the blood of Christ."

            >There is no change in the elements, they remain entirely bread and wine throughout.
            Thanks.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The state of man does not impact the clarity of scripture one way or the other
        That’s like saying
        >The state of the eye does not impact the clarity of the image

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The bible isn't an image, it's a spoken word with meaning and purpose.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The state of the ear does not impact the clarity of the lyrics

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Correct

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's confusing, too, because this same guy says that you interpret everything wrong if you're Catholic.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You don't interpret it at all if you're a papist, you just believe whatever the pope tells you to

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >more than Romans 9
    And how does Romans 9 do that?

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, predestination is true. We’re all saved, and free-will still exists, because it isn’t the choice between good and evil. It was always the choice between goods. Get fricked, everyone who disagrees with these truths.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Unconditional election makes ZERO sense. It doesn’t make any sense why God is telling people to repent and having people preach, or sending prophets, or getting angry at them for going astray if God created masses of people to be vessels of wrath who God purposely chose to be reprobates

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This version of god is the ultimate shitposter, always actively seeking out opportunities to get angry at something.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The lengths people go to deny universalism…

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Universalism makes more sense than Calvinism at this point.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The truth is that the human will is compatible with predestination. But both things are true. We are responsible moral agents and God has foreordained all things. But how this is reconciled is something beyond the finite human capacity for understanding.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine abandoning Orthodoxy for Calvinism, the soulless materialism of Christian tradition, of all things

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    God created 99% of humanity (even people who lived just and holy lives) for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity
    Why?
    For his glory
    All of humanity are his wretched slaves
    Deal with it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no thanks, Satanism ain't for me

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >TULIP fell into place of its own accord
    ?

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Calvin's god is a worse monster than even the standard Satan/"pure evil enemy of the divine" archetype.
    How can you people worship this thing? It's a fricking eldritch horror.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If God is real, then God created the world knowing everything that would happen in it, and his knowledge of it is infallible. He actuated the (You) that would do what (You) have done, rather than a different (You) that would have done something different. The future is set, as God already knows what it is.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Nah god doesn't exist, but if Calvin's god existed, he'd be an insane psycho.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not talking about "Calvin's God", just the concept of God. If God knows everything then the future is set and not changeable.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not all christians think that god is truly to omnipotent in the way you're thinking of.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You would need to reject God's omniscience. The position is nonsensical. It's only held, as far as I know, by some Arminian Protestants so that they can defend against Calvinism.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Molinism is a bit of a meme but it's not entirely lacking in supporters.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Molinism does not deny God's omniscience; the Christians who deny omniscience call themselves Open Theists. Molinism is rather the claim that God possesses "middle knowledge" of counterfactual events (such as "Person A would do X in this situation but do Y if the situation were different") and that God uses this knowledge to actualize a particular world within the bounds of human freedom. So it's working within the fact that God's knowledge does set the future. The problem, however, is that God's knowledge of counterfactual events arises from God himself and not from the hypothetical creature, as the creature does not exist prior to creation, so I don't see how it resolves the "problem."

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >TULIP fell into place of its own accord

    This does a pretty good job dismantling Calvinism:

    https://www.hopperscrossingchristianchurch.com/portfolio-item/the-oxymorons-of-calvinist-doctrine/

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I would caution you to understand that "Calvinism" is really Reformed Christianity, and is an entire theological system, not just the "five points", which is just a popularization of its some (not all) of its soteriology, leaving out its ecclesiology, its understanding of the sacraments, the covenants, piety, etc. You can find it explained in the historic Reformed confessions of faith. In the Presbyterian tradition there are the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession, Larger Catechism, Shorter Catechism), and in the continental Reformed tradition there are the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dort).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There are also some Baptists who have have a substantial commonality with Reformed theology, though of course not in everything. They are often called Reformed Baptists today.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There are also some Baptists who have have a substantial commonality with Reformed theology, though of course not in everything. They are often called Reformed Baptists today.

      Here are all of the Reformed denominations in North America

      https://www.naparc.org/directories-2/

      These are all of the faithful conservatives denominations, who are all in communion with each other. The largest one is the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

      Reformed Baptists are a bit more elusive to find and I don't know of a directory like this for them.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any Barth readers on IQfy?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      say no to neoorthodoxy

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I think he's right that infant baptism is wrong.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No.

          >TULIP fell into place of its own accord

          This does a pretty good job dismantling Calvinism:

          https://www.hopperscrossingchristianchurch.com/portfolio-item/the-oxymorons-of-calvinist-doctrine/

          It does a pretty good job of being an embarrassment and a shame. The author makes himself very clear at the outset he has absolutely no interest in convincing Reformed Christians of his perspective, he is instead simply terrified that his fellow synergists will develop a more biblical appreciation for God's glory through the salvation of His elect, so he spiritually abuses his own flock by modifying scripture and reason into a hammer with which he might beat his own teachings into their minds as if they were God's words. Shame on him for this pulpit crime, but may God keep him from being ashamed of it eternally. Even though I think he was supposed to be alleging contradictions in the doctrines of grace, he only alleged one (which is really not a contradiction) and then proceeded to cry over and over about irresistible grace and unconditional election, and rant about how much he dislikes the biblical God.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Psalm 51

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    To prove that one of church fathers taught the Catholic doctrine you would need to show a statement in which they say that the bread actually stops being bread. Stating that the bread is the body of Christ, or that Christ is in the bread, or that we eat Christ's body, etc., does not establish the point. The doctrine is that the substance, the being, of the bread, ceases entirely to be bread, such that in the Eucharist there is literally no bread present at all.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Also I am not implying that no one says this. But that is what they would need to say.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe these are satisfactory.

      St Irenaeus
      >For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.

      St Athanasius
      >So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ.

      St Cyril of Jerusalem
      >Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I think Irenaeus and Cyril here are reconcilable with the Reformed view of the sacrament, that Christ's presence is a heavenly reality which is present to us through faith. Athanasius is less clear, but he's still not quite saying that the elements are no longer also bread and wine.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with Calvinism is that most Calvinists are old Scottish boomers who live on the east coast of the u.s. There's not much of a community to join revolving around that. Also they vote on fricking everything. The church hierarchy is a nightmare.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You are reading Romans 9 wrong. Your interpretation of Roman 9 means that Paul is contradicting the entire rest of the Bible.

    Romans should be ready as a whole. It is a narrative. He is telling the story of the regeneration of a wicked person. And what you guys do is take the wicked person part of the story and pretend that that's how Christians are supposed to act. Even though it contradicts the entire rest of the Bible completely.

    It's horrid. Calvinism and Lutheranism were simply just inventions to excuse people in their sin. Demonic stuff.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Romans should be ready as a whole. It is a narrative. He is telling the story of the regeneration of a wicked person. And what you guys do is take the wicked person part of the story and pretend that that's how Christians are supposed to act. Even though it contradicts the entire rest of the Bible completely.
      I am not confident you have ever read the Book of Romans

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You can be confident or not confident. But Romans is in fact a narrative that must be read as one letter. You shouldn't be cherry picking one part of it since the character in Romans progressively changes. If you're unaware of this, then I can certainly conclude you've never read Romans fully with any kind of objectivity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What does Romans 4 mean?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Romans should be ready as a whole. It is a narrative. He is telling the story of the regeneration of a wicked person
      Did we read the same epistle?

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    **Question for knowledgeable Calvinists.

    Now, it's my understanding that a Calvinist communicant believes he is receiving in some way the real presence of Christ when he partakes of Communion. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

    What is Calvin's view of the Eucharist with respect to any change in the elements of bread and wine?

    For instance, is the bread bread only before it is consumed?

    Or is there any preservation of the Communion elements after the Lord's Supper service, on the understanding that what appears to be bread is no longer common bread?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *